[z3-five] Re: Using Zope2 page templates with Five

[Philipp von Weitershausen]

Lennart Regebro wrote:
> Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>  > I certainly would like to have Zope 3 ZPTs in Five, as would probably
>  > others.
> 
> I think that sounds reasonable, but out of interest: What are your 
> specific reasons?

Zope3-style traversal (@@, ++resource++, etc.) as well as ZPT traversal 
adapters to name one, e.g.
   * context/zope:title
   * context/@@absolute_url/url:quote
etc.

Also, as Martijn pointed out, there are certain subtle differences that 
I don't know off of the top of my head (I think wrt i18n etc.).

>  >If people really have the use case of needing Zope 2 ZPTs, how
>  > about the following:
>  >
>  > <browser:page> and all the configuration directives known from Zope 3
>  > make regular Zope 3 ZPT pages, while <five:page> and corresponding
>  > directives make Zope 2 ZPT pages. Or, maybe in a more intuitive manner,
>  > <zope2:page>?
> 
> Nope, because the zope2 pages need to interact with the zope3 pages, and 
> call widget macros and so on, so all page statements must use the same 
> base. A page created with a <five:page> directive would not be able to 
> use zope3 widgets, while a <browser:page> directive using Zope3 ZPTs can 
> not use the design of a CMF site.

Right, so where's the problem. Somebody who uses Five to integrate with 
CMF templates probably never wants to (and probably even cannot) use 
Zope 3 templates at the same time.
So, all Five-based products that have to do with the CMF would use 
five:page, all others would use browser:page. Where's the problem?

> Zope2 page templates just makes CMF integration a hundred gazillion 
> times easier,

I can imagine that. I definitely see the use case for Five supporting 
both flavours.

 > so if you really need Zope3 templates, we probably should
> have a configuration statement to say which type is to be used.

Again, I don't think that's necessary. I think explicitly stating which 
flavour is to be used by choosing between <browser:page> and <five:page> 
or <browser:editform> and <five:editform>, etc., would be sufficient and 
more elegant. Explicit is better than implicit.

Philipp